 |
| Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Two State Solution) |
Van Hollen, who spent 14 years in the House before getting elected to the Senate, has built a reputation as a cerebral, low-key policy wonk. His generally cautious and consensus-building approach has helped him steadily climb the political ladder from Maryland State Delegate to US Senator. As the son of a member of the foreign service, Van Hollen spent his youthful years in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Turkey and other overseas stations. That background seems to have guided his political career: Van Hollen's 16 years in Congress have been marked by an interest in international affairs, and he seems to have established himself as a bit of a foreign-policy expert in the Democratic Party.
Like most members of Congress, Van Hollen says he is pro-Israel. He always votes to give more money to Israel's military so that it can maintain a qualitative military edge over all its neighbors. And he supports providing Israel with defensive weaponry like Iron Dome. But recently he has been vocally critical of Israel, legislation supported by AIPAC and of Benjamin Netanyahu's leadership.
In September 2017, Van Hollen was asked about Ben Cardin's Anti-BDS bill that imposed 20-year jail sentences on certain boycotters of Israel. Van Hollen said he didn't support it due to free speech concerns:
Following that up, in January of this year, Van Hollen went to the well of the Senate and gave a masterful 28-minute speech condemning Marco Rubio's Anti-BDS bill S.1 as "blatantly unconstitutional":
As votes are counted in Israel today, Netanyahu should know that his fear-mongering and alliance with the ultra-right, racist Otzma Yehudit party has not gone unnoticed. True friends of Israel will stand against efforts to unilaterally annex the West Bank. https://t.co/RjNWhFCTsj— Chris Van Hollen (@ChrisVanHollen) April 9, 2019
That very same day, Van Hollen grilled Secretary of State Mike Pompeo about the administration's view on Israel annexing the West Bank. When Pompeo wouldn't oppose such annexation Van Hollen notably startlingly challenged him about Palestinian rights in a single unified state: "If you had a one state solution -- since you hadn’t affirmed a two-state solution -- would you agree that in a one state solution Palestinians should have full and equal political and legal rights with other citizens of that state?":
The next day, April 10th, the Washington Post published this joint Op-Ed from Van Hollen and NOVA Congressman Gerry Connelly again warning about the dangers of Netanyahu/Trump's right-wing plans and promoting the Two State Solution as the only truly pro-Israel outcome.
What does this new stridency from Van Hollen really mean?
This reflects a trend which is bigger than just Van Hollen. He is channelling mainstream Democratic frustration/concern/panic that Trump & Netanyahu will extinguish the last gasps of the Two State Solution -- an idea that was considered nearly sacrosanct for decades in both parties. They can see that out of the ashes of the Two State Solution, Israel will emerge as a replica of Apartheid South Africa -- by essentially making all the West Bank part of Israel and herding millions of stateless Palestinians into miserable little enclaves. Democrats know that in the long run, this untenable situation will be disastrous for Israelis and could result in all of Israel being taken over by Palestinians if they are granted equality.
Democrats know that they will be powerless for at least the next two years -- until they win the Presidency -- while Netanyahu and Trump together will do everything they can to make Israeli control over Palestinian lives permanent and irreversible. And this is the reason for their freakout.
Unfortunately, Van Hollen's efforts to save the Two State Solution at this point are likely too-little-too-late. The time to act was when Democrats controlled the Presidency. But Obama dithered endlessly and tried to appease the pro-Israel folks by not directly confronting Netanyahu over Palestine. Well boys, now its time to sleep in the bed you made yourselves.
As a political aside, Van Hollen seems liberated to criticize Israel by his election to the US Senate. He's no longer running for higher office and only needs to face the voters every 6 years. It's likely that he will occupy that seat for as long as he wants and he seems to know that he can speak his mind freely. But he also probably has bigger things in mind: Is it possible that his staunch defense of the Two State Solution doubles as an audition for Secretary of State under the next Democratic Presidency? Keep that question in mind as you watch Van Hollen's moves over the next two years,
